commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject Re: commons-logging version 0.0.0-EMPTY
Date Thu, 21 May 2009 12:50:33 GMT
Ceki Gulcu wrote:

> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Ceki,
>> Ceki Gulcu wrote at Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 22:00:
>>> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>>> Yes I'm aware of that. My concern is for those people who don't know
>>>> about that. What will happen if they declare
>>>> commons-logging:commons-logging without a version in their POM? Or
>>>> declare the special token LATEST as a version for commons-logging? Will
>>>> they get 1.1.1 or 0.0 or what?
>>> - LATEST only affects maven plug-ins, not regular artifacts.
>>> - You can't declare a dependency without a specific version.
>>> - Version ranges have no effect.
>>> I am no Maven expert, so all three assertions above might be wrong.
>> No, AFAICS you're right on all three. However, as I pointed out in my
>> other mail, we're creating a hack for a problem that exists with a lot of
>> other artifacts also.
> Do you think that the problem with the other artifacts very similar or
> roughly similar? Dependency management and compatibility issues
> account for a large portion of IT troubles. The 0.0-EMPTY solution is
> bound to fall into the same space as any other dependency management
> problem, because it addresses, well, the same problem.
> The issue with commons-logging can be considered somewhat unique as
> very few libraries have the same level of penetration as logging
> libraries, be it commons-logging, log4j or SLF4J. If in any given
> project, if each dependency is denoted as a node in a graph, roughly
> 80% of all nodes would depend on some logging library, whereas for
> other libraries, e.g. cglib-*, asm-*, jsf* the percentage would
> probably be significantly lower.

That's true, but it does not help, if you actually run on it ;-)

> Also note that Erik van Oosten, a person unaffiliated with the SLF4J
> project, actually came up and published a solution to the
> commons-logging exclusion problem. I am not aware of other efforts
> involving other libraries. Are you?

Well, the number of packages depending on e.g. xmlParserAPIs has went down
significantly, because it was really the wrong artifact to use. In case of
logging its more religious and will not go away that soon ;-)

- Jörg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message